Court rules blogger can remain anonymous

A blogger who had roundly criticized a local politician will not have his/her …

In a case journalists and bloggers have been watching closely, the Delaware Supreme Court yesterday overturned (PDF) a lower court's decision requiring an ISP to turn over the identity of an anonymous blogger. The suit was brought by Smyrna, DE town councilman Patrick Cahill and his wife Julia, who had been the target of heavy criticism from the Smyrna/Clayton Issues Blog, run by Independent Newspapers, Inc. Cahill was angered by a number of posts in the blog questioning his sexual proclivities, among other things.

Cahill's suit contended he had been defamed by the anonymous bloggers and requested that their identities be revealed so he could go after them for damages. The lower court granted his request, and Cahill presented Comcast with a court order requiring it to reveal the identity of the blogger. As required by Federal law, Comcast notified "John Doe No. 1," who appealed the lower court's decision.

The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that in such cases, the plaintiff would have to prove that there was a strong enough case that defamation had occurred (e.g., being able to defeat a motion for summary judgment) before one's anonymity could be compromised.

In the unanimous ruling, Chief Justice Myron Steele compared such political blogs to the time-honored practice of political pamphleteering, saying that bloggers' First Amendment right to political speech must be protected from intimidation.

As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, "anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent." The United States Supreme Court continued, "[t]he right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."

We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously. The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all.

This is an important decision, not just for individual bloggers, but also for news sites that operate primarily on the Internet. It raises the bar for unmasking anonymous critics and news writers, the presence of which are necessary to keep a democracy strong and vibrant. While this decision applies only to residents of Delaware, hopefully other courts both state and federal will follow in Delaware's footsteps should similar cases arise.